Creek. No paddle.

We are not legal experts, but we believe that, more than anything else since June 2016, it is the Supreme Court case against Boris Johnson that will be remembered in the future.

When Parliament gains more powers, history notices. The Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Great Reform Act in 1832; all led to huge changes in the way this island is governed. The Supreme Court unanimously declared that the Prime Minister has overreached his power, which limits what future Prime Ministers can or cannot do. This implicitly gives Parliament more power, and sets a precedent that the Supreme Court can overrule the Prime Minister's actions.

This is because we have no codified constitution. In most countries, the constitution is the political rulebook, dictating what politicians are able to do, what powers the various branches of government have and where their limits are. In the UK, the rulebook doesn't exist.

Or, rather, it does, but across a sprawling mass of documents, and mostly in the minds of the rule-keepers (the Speaker and their Deputies) and players (MPs and the PM) instead of in one central place. This means the rules are often fluid, changeable, or can even be ignored. Unlike in the US, the Prime Minister could become a dictator if they get enough votes (and if the Queen obliges - but that's a whole other issue).

So Boris Johnson, in trying to limit Parliament's power by shutting up shop for five weeks, has only achieved a muscular extension of Parliamentary sovereignty at his own expense. Aside from the rather satisfying end result this is, future Prime Ministers will curse him for how much harder their jobs have been made. Running the country is an intensely stressful occupation, never mind having to deal with one of the most active parliaments in the world. And now said parliament has suddenly been endowed with new possibilities and freedoms to act against the PM.

He is in trouble. This is not a magistrates court dealing in petty theft. The most intelligent and experienced justices in the country have declared him a criminal - a man who has broken the law. In moral terms, that is a deeply alarming judgement of a figure in No.10. In political terms, that means Johnson is likely to lose support from moderate Conservative MPs and much of the more liberal party membership, plus a swathe of the middle-class at an election. Resignation calls are coming from every quarter; remainers are-invigorated, leavers are demoralised; this is a man in trouble.

Don't write him off yet. Laura Kuenssberg earlier suggested that we must not 'underestimate how aggressive Number 10 might be willing to be in response'. In New York for the United Nations Assembly, Johnson could well fly straight home to start an immediate counter-campaign. He still has options. He still has power.

Yet this is a man who has lost all six of his first Commons votes, broken the law and misled the monarch. His Premiership has not been a success story.

And don't you think he looks tired?


Theo

What’s a Tory, Balamory?

We often don’t understand what conservatism is. What we should understand is that it isn't pure evil.

Ahead of our episode with Sir John Redwood being released, I thought it would be worth revisiting what 'conservatism' is as an idea, and trying to give it a fair say in an increasingly uncompromising world.

Where does the idea come from; what does it actually believe in; and is it really important?

[Just to clarify: there is conservatism with a small ‘c’, which means the idea/ideology and Conservative with a big ‘C’, which means to belong to the political party. They are slightly different, so don't get confused!]

There are two types of people...

No, seriously. When modern political thought emerged out of the late 1700s, it basically worked out that there are two naturally opposing political groups. A yin and yang, if you will.

Firstly, there are those that want more change in society. They are ‘liberal’, or ‘progressive’, and are dissatisfied with the status quo, seeing it as allowing abuses of power. They feel the government should be the agent of change, and that individuals can benefit from government support. Business is to be regulated, and taxes higher. Labour, the Democrats (USA), the SDP (Germany) are all examples. 

To this, naturally, there must an opposite. Cue 'conservatism'. Conservatives prefers cautious, natural change over time, driven by local communities and institutions, generally feeling there is value in tradition and history. 

Slightly outdated graphic, but it roughly shows positions

They would see government-led change as dangerous, and allowing government excess, so these people prefer a smaller government and trust businesses more. They are the Conservatives (or 'Tories'), the Republicans (USA) and the CDU (Germany).

Naturally, these beliefs all range along a spectrum, with most somewhere in the middle, but if you were to divide society into two political groups, you’d find that it would broadly coalesce along these lines. There are always those who want change, and those who are cautious of it. Simple as that.

Vive la sitting-at-home!

British perception of the French chaos

Conservatism with a small ‘c’ emerged during the French Revolution, when the violent, painful destruction of the French elite (and the resultant wars) shocked much of the middle and upper class in Britain. 

In response they reestablished their commitment to trusting facts, pragmatism and the community in their politics. The flag-waving, 'egalitare'-proclaiming, abstract-thinking Revolutionaries were too distant from their own experiences. They preferred the hard truth to grand plans. 

The philosopher Michael Oakeshott put it like this: ‘To be conservative...is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, near to distant’.

It is not that conservatives hate change, but more that they trust what they can see and hear over lofty principles that mean well, but often fail. Conservatives rely on local communities to keep in check the government and the excesses of the individual. Liberals believe that government is always good, and that people are generally well-meaning. Conservatives are less naive.

The Party of Government

If you follow British or American politics, you will likely have an unfavourable view of the right-wing, having seen the behavior of President Trump, or the Conservative Party around Brexit. Yet, this is a chaotic anomaly for a group that in history has been the stewards of responsible economic management and reliability.

For instance, it was the Conservative Party that pulled Britain’s economy out of a post-World War Two slump, after the Labour Party struggled; 

it was Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in the 1960s who pioneered the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, accelerated decolonisation, and oversaw Britain's permanent transition into a modern economy by liberalising business;

thirty years later, John Major strengthened the European Union, began the Northern Ireland peace process and halved unemployment;

the Coalition austerity plans skillfully reduced a damaging budget deficit, while reducing the tax the poorest had to pay and making British universities world-class again.

Forty-four of the seventy-four years since 1945 have seen a Conservative PM. Time and time again they have been reelected. Surely, with the public so often backing them there must be merit in the Conservative belief of reliable, non-experimental politics?

Of course, we must except the present state of conservatism. It has failed to respond responsibly to nationalist populism and so has been corrupted by xenophobia and racism. Their policies are being pulled out of responsible thinking and into the realms of unicorn-land that more often belongs to the left-wing.

The sharp Republican turn to the right in the USA
has caused political deadlock

But conservatives have done a lot of good. By making progress steady, rather than excessive, and stabilising the United Kingdom when it needed it most, they have fully contributed to the effective running of this country. 

More worryingly is what fills the gap if the conservative parties crumble and forget their beliefs. Progressive parties are not perfect; something will emerge to oppose them, but it looks like 'something' will be very far right.


Conservatism isn't all bad, so it would be a shame if it screwed us over now.


Theo

The Donkey Kicks Back

I rate the Democrat Party's leading candidates for President.

Kamala Harris. Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden. Elizabeth Warren. The Democrat Party has four leading candidates for the 2020 Presidential nomination. 

After a series of local Party votes a winner will emerge to challenge President Trump for the leadership of the free world. 

And it will be one of these four; lacklustre television debates and funding limits mean that a dark horse (such as O'Rourke or Buttigieg) is becoming increasingly unlikely.

So who will, a) win the nomination?, and b) have the best chance of victory in what will likely be the most chaotic, slanderous and unpleasant election in American history? I've judged each candidate on their chances. 

But I can only cover so much, and you may disagree. Quite right. Let me know what I get wrong and what you think, in the comments or on Instagram.

Bernie Sanders

"Our infrastructure is collapsing. Teachers are underpaid. Veterans sleep on the streets. Families can't afford childcare"

Age: 77

Current Job: Independent senator for Vermont (but officially allied with Democrats)

Previous Career: Mayor of Burlington, Vermont Congressman

Rivals: 1) Kamala Harris, 2) Elizabeth Warren

In the Polls: 16.0% (RCP Poll of Polls)

Donation Record: $6mn raised within 24 hours; c.$72mn overall (precise figures unclear)

Key Policies:

• Healthcare - introduced universal healthcare ('Medicare for All') into mainstream and frequently attacks drugs firms/bosses

• Immigration - Backs comprehensive reform of immigration policy and enforcement

• Climate - Pioneered 'Green New Deal' (more here) and has a history of environmental action

• Education - Supports free tertiary education ('College for All')

• Justice & Drugs - Prefers rehabilitation and early prevention to deterrence; pro-weed-legalisation

• Foreign Policy - moderately isolationist; mixed on Israel; pro-defence spending cuts

• Taxation - Much higher taxation on richest earners and businesses

Chances:

In 2016, Bernie was the outsider to Clinton, his plans on universal healthcare and free tuition dismissed as too excessive for a Presidential candidate. Yet today, with one notable exception, those ideas are values cherished across the Democrat Party. 

His perceived integrity and appeal to white working class voters - the traditional Democrat base - create significant hype and energy. But his chances of winning the nomination are limited by a lack of anything really edgy and new, allowing alternatives to flourish. The huge cost of his policies is a valid concern too.

He would not beat Trump. Four years of on-off Twitter attacks have poked holes in his broader reputation and his staunch-left position makes appeals to the centre difficult. 

His age makes a difference too; this is one of the most exhausting jobs in the world, and the reliability of an eighty year-old is thus questionable. His attitudes towards the military, a cherished icon of American power, would also not sell.

The real danger is that, upon losing the nomination, he would run anyway as an independent. This would be disastrous, siphoning key votes from the Democrats just as the electoral stakes are the highest since World War Two.

Chances of being Nominated: 7/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 5/10

Kamala Harris

"This election is about you, your hopes, your dreams, your fears, and what wakes you up at 3 a.m."

Age: 54

Current Job: Democrat Senator for California

Career: District Attorney of San Francisco, Attorney General of California

Rivals: 1) Bernie Sanders, 2) Elizabeth Warren, 3) Joe Biden

In the Polls: 8.0% 

Donation Record: $1.5mn within 24 hours; $23.8mn overall

Key Policies: 

• Healthcare - Backs 'Medicare for All' which would provide universal health insurance

• Immigration - Opposed to most current policy (ie anti-wall, detention centres, and splitting families)

• Climate Change - Supports the Green New Deal 

• Education - Free college for incomes below $125,000, and has planned for a large teacher pay rise 

• Justice & Drugs - Pro-weed legalisation; anti-death penalty; history of tough action as California DA ("I did the work of significantly reforming the criminal justice system of the state of 40 million people")

• Foreign Policy - Favoured withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan; opposed to Yemen involvement; staunchly pro-Israel

• Taxation - Introduced a tax cut for middle-class provisionally costing $2.8trn over a decade

Chances:

An uncontroversial, well-liked candidate, Mrs Harris sits fourth in a race of twenty-four. She is probably the most charismatic of the front-runners with relative youth and an advantageous background (child of immigrants, success as Attorney General). 

She's fairly strong on policy, with her middle-class tax cuts a detailed appeal to the centre-ground, and she has an ability to connect to key demographics. 

I don't agree with all of this, but the 29% figure is clear.

However, she will struggle to distinguish herself from the other three, being too left towards Bernie Sanders (see similarities on education, climate, and healthcare), too wonkish towards Elizabeth Warren, and sharing too many potential voters with Joe Biden. 

Yet her clear message, readiness to pivot towards the centre, and more conservative action on crime means that if she can secure the nomination, she will have a chance in the real thing. 

A quarter of Democrats already think she could beat Trump - more than most candidates. I agree.

Chances of being Nominated: 5/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 8/10

Elizabeth Warren

"Today's big tech companies have too much power-too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They've bulldozed competition...and titled the playing field against everyone else."

Age: 69


Current Job: Senator for Massachusetts

Career: Law Professor; oversaw post-Recession economic stimulus; adviser to President Obama on financial fair play

Rivals: 1) Kamala Harris 2) Joe Biden

In the Polls: 17.3%

Donation Record: $300,000 within 24 hours; $25.1mn overall


Key Policies:

• Healthcare - Backs Medicare for All and favours profit regulation for insurance companies; has suggested opening a government-run pharmaceutical firm to bring prices down

• Immigration - pro-ICE (immigration agency) replacement; favours decriminalising illegal border crossings

• Climate - Supports GND; wants public companies to disclose impact of climate change; has suggested new laws on water cleanliness, methane pollution, etc.

• Education - Plans to partially forgive student debt & make public higher education free

• Justice & Drugs - pro-weed-legalisation; anti-death penalty

• Foreign Policy - favours Afghanistan withdrawal; opposed to Yemen involvement; has criticised Israel openly

• Taxes - reversal of 2017 tax cuts; wealth tax on 75,000 richest Americans

Chances:

Elizabeth Warren has a reputation of being a policy 'wonk' - someone who likes detail and understands the complexity of law. Where the above candidates had eight/nine policy categories on other websites, Warren had about twelve, each properly developed.

This is in contrast to Sanders' big-picture thinking, or Harris' inexperience in high office. Warren's plans to heavily regulate Big Tech have gone down a storm, helping her sit ahead of Bernie in the polls. 

But the cost, oh the cost. $37 trillion over ten years for all her policies. And does she have the sparkle necessary to out-charm Biden?

Trump and Warren would be a very, very entertaining contest; his opportunism versus her structured detail. In theory, she is capable of gaining moderate Republican votes, but could she stand up to Trump in a TV debate, where her deliberate, scripted speech would be drowned out?

Yet the focus on plausible policy is encouraging, and if she could make the message heard, Warren would be in with a chance.

Chances of being Nominated: 7/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 7/10

Joe Biden

"We're all human, and we can all be misled. When leaders don't level with citizens, we can't expect them to make good judgments."


Age: 76

Current Job: N/A

Career: Delaware Senator; Vice-President

Rivals: 1) Elizabeth Warren.

In the Polls: 30.5%

Donation Record: $21mn April-June 2019 + $10.9mn cash on hand


Key Policies:

• Healthcare: Wants to build upon Obamacare - which he helped introduce - but anti-Medicare for All due to cost

• Immigration: Wants to increase border security, but not Trumpian style

• Climate: Has not endorsed GND, but fully backs Paris Accords; criticism for 'cut and paste' climate plan

• Education: Supports free college education; pro-universal preschool care

• Justice & Drugs: History of deterrence-based crime law (more prison & police funding etc.)

• Foreign Policy: Tough on Russia; supported drone strikes in Syria; anti-Libya intervention

• Taxes: Higher taxes on wealthy Americans; increased tax relief for middle-class

Chances:

Joe Biden. Three-time Presidential contender, former vice-president, and long-term senator. After an early surge to 42%, 'Uncle Joe' has fallen somewhat, but is still the clear leader. 

A tough man lies behind the amiability; his wife and daughter died when he was 29, and a son passed away four years ago. He has integrity and commands genuine appeal in the 'rust belt' swing states, as well as having a history of pragmatism that is sorely lacking in America. 

If he showed some developed policy ideas, and overcame some awkward historical senate votes, he might be able to defend his left flank from Warren and Harris. 

But he could well stumble at the televised debates in September, and his perceptions of race, gender and personal space are still clumsy.

The Economist has written that 'Mr Biden's long-ago working class roots are [not] a substitute for the serious reappraisal of economic policy' needed. 

They aren't wrong. Biden will not bring the energetic changes that much of America is looking for. 

He is too prone to gaffes and his support base too apathetic (in comparison to the frantic cheers at rivals' rallies) to hold up for eight months against an incumbent who will find gaps and holes everywhere. He might win the working-class, but he would lose the left-wing, especially as Sanders would probably run if Biden won.

Chances of being Nominated: 8/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 4/10

This is how I ranked the four:

Winning the Nomination:

1. Biden
2. Warren
3. Harris
4. Sanders

Winning the Presidency:

1. Harris
2. Warren
3. Sanders
4. Biden

On this conclusion, it seems that Warren has the best combined chance of victory, while Biden would be thoroughly unsuitable if elected as candidate. Sanders is barely worth considering. 

Yet there are still seven months until the primaries begin in March, and anything could happen. Let's just hope 'anything' favours Kamala Harris.

Theo

Boris Johnson - The Greatest Juggling Act in the World

Our new Prime Minister will inherit the most embattled Government in British history.

Boris Johnson has won the Conservative leadership election. His prize is a government that has endured more defeats in the Commons under Theresa May than all governments since Callaghan put together.

And this only gets worse. His majority of 3 will probably be reduced to 1 at the upcoming Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, where the Lib Dems are favourites (remember a loss for the government is a gain for the Opposition so they actually lose two votes).

So, 1 MP out of 320 is likely all that is required to bring down Boris Johnson. He needs to keep them all on side. 

Yet the competing opinions held by those MPs are below:

"We should seek an extension past the 31st of October"

"We must leave on the 31st of October"

"No deal is required"

"No deal must be avoided at all costs"

"A second referendum is required"

"A second referendum is a subversion of democracy"

"Re-negotiate a new deal with the EU"

"The only deal we have is Theresa May's deal"

"We should seek to remain within the ETA"

"Remaining in the ETA is not Brexit"

"We should follow Norway's model"

"WTO option would be economic suicide"

"There can be no border in Ireland"

For most MPs these are uncompromising beliefs which cannot be avoided. But the majority of 1 means Prime Minister Johnson must keep all these MPs loyal and content.

And so his juggling act begins.

It's hard to promise an exit by the 31st of October yet keep pro-extension MPs happy. It's even harder to sell remainers a no-deal exit, or hard-line brexiteers on a second referendum. Hardest of all is the last statement: "There can be no border in Ireland". A no-deal would indeed introduce a border, and so would many of the other shades of Brexit. This would be unacceptable to the DUP, who would abandon Boris and give him a minority of -19.

If Boris Johnson can successfully balance these opposing groups, he will become one of this country's most talented statesmen - ever. But if just one MP dislikes him or his Brexit policies, they could abandon him and back a no-confidence vote, bringing his government crashing down. An early general election would be called.

Boris Johnson is trying to walk a tightrope over a shark infested lake, and, knowing him, his response will be completely unexpected. Why not hop across?

Salvation may come from a place least expected. The only non-Conservatives who don't want a general election are the pro-remain Independent Group for Change (formally Change UK (formally The Independent Group)). An election is likely to lose them all their seats, so they will block any no-confidence vote not related to no-deal, giving him the lifeline needed to somehow deliver Brexit.

This is somewhat conjecture; Conservative MPs may disagree with Johnson's approach but many fear Corbyn as PM enough to keep them loyal; some Labour MPs may put their personal beliefs in Brexit above the party and vote for confidence in the Conservatives.

I doubt Boris Johnson's Government will fall to a vote of no confidence. He will survive just long enough to call a General Election, which he would probably lose and no longer have deal with the political poison of Brexit.

And he won't care, he would have achieved his goal. "Prime Minister Boris Johnson" will forever be in the history books.

- Peter

(If you, like I are confused by Brexit I would recommend listening to Theo Does Brexit and Theo Updates Brexit which can be found here and here)

Oscillating Tones

Freedom of speech is under attack, but maybe not forever.

Freedom of speech is struggling. The ability to openly discuss our thoughts has long been an important value in western democracy. Yet internet echo chambers and the dismissal of news as 'fake' by politicians mean that we as citizens are beginning to casually reject facts and principles that we disagree with.

One psychology experiment, for instance, found that we are willing to forgo money in order to avoid experiencing opposing opinions such as on gun control or gay marriage (more here). This is inflamed by silent algorithms, subtly influencing what we see on social media.

If you can't handle criticism of minorities,
short of inciting direct violence,
then grow a thicker skin

Because the internet, for the first time in the modern era, allows us to actively avoid neutral fact and contrary opinions, making us more hostile when opposition does surface. 
It also means everything we say can be picked apart for the smallest reasons, making us quickly feel morally engulfed or uncertain. 

These effects act as a brake on the freedom to ask questions and talk about the day's key issues. Better to stay quiet than get dragged into endless, unwinnable, comment wars.

The Importance of Being Earnest

This is alarming. There's a reason free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It allows criticism of politicians and government failures; a Nobel Laureate once pointed out that 'no democracy with a free press ever endured famine'. Free debate inspires innovation and creativity, with the killing of bad ideas and the encouraging of good ones. This explains why Silicon Valley has sprung up in America, 'land of the free'.

So is society doomed to collapse into petty squabbles for the foreseeable future?

Maybe not. A similar trend often occurs in high-stress periods. For example, during the Vietnam War, Max Hastings, a historian, has pointed out that opposition to the war quickly mutated into young people admiring 'Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara...heedless of the oppression their heroes promoted' (e.g. Mao's actions killed 20-45 million people). 

Apparently, if you're pro-war, you're a fascist

In this case, vague anti-war beliefs quickly evolved into support for North Vietnam, a nation which impoverished 8 million of its own people under 'rent controls'. 

Because everyone was/is so determined to get across their opinion, they shout more loudly and more radically to get attention. Anything in the middle ground is savaged by both sides, ergo, a loss of freedom of speech.

Yet in Vietnam, Saigon was overrun, the war ended and society returned to suburbia. The spite died down, and normal returned.

That holds promise for today. Freedom of speech is under threat. But it may not be permanent.

Theo

The Poorly Informed Blog

Hello and welcome to the Poorly Informed Blog! Below are Theo's old blog posts, preserved for posterity, but everything above this post will be published and signed by a member of the Poorly Informed Podcast.

The podcast has been on a break following a surprisingly successful Season One, but are now beginning to plan Season Two. If all goes well, the first episodes should be released in August and take us nicely into autumn, where there will be another, longer, break. This means regular blogging may not start for several weeks - although nothing is certain.

If you haven't listened to Season One, you can find the old episodes (plus much else besides) here, which should either fill the time, or put you to sleep. We'll be back soon with twenty episodes of fresh content!

Thanks,

Theo, Will, Peter and Max